TOP LAW ENFORCERS CAN'T IGNORE LAW THEY DON'T LIKE

From the Deseret Morning News

Utahns expect their top law enforcers -- Attorney General Mark Shurtleff
and the various district and county attorneys -- to uphold all laws, even
those with which they disagree.

That hasn't been the case with Utah's voter-approved asset forfeiture law,
which requires that proceeds of property seized from lleged drug sellers
and users be funneled into the Uniform School Fund. The money has, instead,
been divided among law enforcement agencies, as it was in the past. A 3rd
District judge has ruled that the practice violates the law established by
the citizen initiative approved by voters in 2000.

Obviously, elected law enforcers don't like this law, which was pitched to
voters as a way to stem alleged government abuse of power. While we agree
that voters were sold a bill of goods with this initiative, law enforcers
need to convince the Utah Legislature to re-do the asset forfeiture law.
They can't simply ignore what it says.

The Utah Legislature, understandably, is reluctant to go against the will
of the people on this particular issue. We remind lawmakers that Initiative
It was approved by voters largely because of unchecked fear mongering by
its proponents. A legislative audit conducted before the 2000 election
raised some concerns about how forfeiture proceeds were distributed but
found no evidence that law enforcers had abused their authority in seizing
cash and property during drug investigations.

The urban legends of little old ladies who had lost their homes because
delinquent grandchildren were dealing drugs from the basement were just
that, fiction. Unfortunately, voters were otherwise convinced by the
affluent out-of-staters who got Initiative B on the ballot.

Proponents of Initiative B say that most people who have property
confiscated end up losing it in legal proceedings. That can likely be
attributed to the fact that many people fail to show up in court. Is it the
government's fault that people don't avail themselves of due process? It is
troubling when people don't appear in court because they are too poor to
hire an attorney and don't have the wherewithal to act as their own
counsel. That's a different matter than failing to show up for hearings.

Again, the law is the law. No matter how much prosecutors don't like this
particular one, they are duty-bound to uphold it following 3rd District
Judge Tyrone Medley's ruling that civil asset forfeiture proceeds must be
turned over to the state. As a practical matter, some $327,900 isn't going
to reform Utah's public school system, but that is where the money
rightfully belongs.

Until the Legislature can amend this law to make it more workable for state
and local agencies charged with narcotics enforcement, prosecutors must
abide by what is arguably bad law. Perhaps Medley's ruling will result in a
concerted effort among law enforcers to work with the Legislature to junk it